While debate on the UN migration pact rages worldwide, with a growing number of nations following the United States in withdrawing, the major deal has seen little discussion in the United Kingdom.
Britain’s ruling Conservative Party made pledges to reduce immigration “from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands” in the 2010, 2015, and 2017 general elections, a promise they have not yet made significant progress in keeping.
Indeed, net migration to Britain still runs at over 270,000 a year, and former Tory chancellor George Osborne has suggested the party’s leadership never intended to honour the pledge.
Either way, signing the United Nations’ so-called Global Compact on Migration for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration would be a major step away from ever realising that commitment, a campaign group has said.
British peer Lord Green of Deddington submitted two parliamentary questions to the government this week in which he requested information on whether, and how, the globalist pledge to ease and “enhance” migration would fit with the Conservatives’ long-standing promise to bring it under control and reduce it.
Several recent polls have indicated that controlling immigration levels remains an important topic for British voters.
A press release by Migration Watch UK, the London-based campaign group which Lord Green leads, said of the pact: “The UK Government should make it clear that it will not sign… If they have any regard for their election promises it would be entirely hypocritical to do so.”
Alp Mehmet, vice-chairman of Migration Watch UK, remarked on the UN deal itself, saying: “The Compact appears to have been drafted by diplomats whose aim seems to be to ‘normalise’ mass immigration from the developing world to the West at a time when the public are very clear that they find the scale and pace of such flows to be unsustainable and unacceptable.”
During drafting, British negotiators called for clauses recognising that it is the right and obligation of states to control their own borders, and that there should be a distinction between refugees and economic migrants, but they were not incorporated into the final text.
While legal professionals have said the compact acts lwill create a legal framework that lawyers will interpret at the national level to advance mass migration, it has received little attention or debate in the United Kingdom, where the political space remains consumed by Brexit.
Yet as the UK works to extract itself from one multinational framework and makes a bid for freedom, it may have inadvertently sleepwalked into another, signed by an ostensibly conservative government which pledged to the people in three consecutive elections to control immigration levels.
Breitbart London has reported on the several nations which have decided the document makes an unacceptable grab on national sovereignty and the right to self-determination, however, following the decision of U.S. President Donald Trump to withdraw his country from the compact in December 2017.
President Trump said at the body’s New York headquarters in September: “Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.
“Ultimately, the only long-term solution to the migration crisis is to help people build more hopeful futures in their home countries: make their countries great again.”
Others nations withdrew after the final text of the agreement was set, declaring they would not be signing up to the compact in December. Among those that have confirmed, or indicated they are rethinking joining, are Australia, Poland, Israel, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Croatia.
SHARE THIS POST